Dr. Vasdev Narang vs The Lt. Governor Gnct Of Delhi And ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2387 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 4th May, 2011.

+                           W.P.(C) 2967/2011

         DR. VASDEV NARANG                                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through:            Mr. Anis Ahmed, Advocate.

                                      versus
    THE LT. GOVERNOR
    GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS                  ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate
                           for R-1.
                           Mr. Yashish Chandra for Ms.
                           Maninder Acharya, Advocate for R-
                           2.
                           Mr. Rajinder Dhawan & Mr.
                           Tauseef Akhtar, Advocate for R-
                           3&4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                      No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported              No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner employed as an Associate Professor with the

respondent no.4 Sri Aurobindo College (M), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi

affiliated to the respondent no.2 University of Delhi, was charged with

sexual harassment and the College Complaints Committee (CCC)

constituted in accordance with Ordinance XV-D (dealing with Sexual

Harassment) of the Calendar of the Delhi University, in its report dated

27th March, 2010 found the petitioner guilty and recommended his

dismissal from service.

2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Apex Complaints

Committee (ACC) also in accordance with Ordinance XV-D (supra),which

has vide order dated 20th December, 2010 confirmed the findings of the

CCC and also found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment but not

agreed with the punishment recommended by the CCC; it was observed

that considering the nature of the acts of sexual harassment committed by

the petitioner, dismissal from service would be an excessive punishment;

accordingly the ACC has recommended disciplinary action against the

petitioner of stopping of increments for the rest of the service period,

debarring from supervisory duties for the rest of the service period,

debarring from administrative duties for the rest of the service period and

denial of membership of statutory bodies of the college and University for

the rest of the service period.

3. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside of the report of the

CCC and the order of the ACC including the recommendations made

therein.

4. The petitioner has also sought setting aside of the order dated 10 th

April, 2010 of the college whereby the entry of the petitioner in the college

complex was banned.

5. As far as the relief with respect to the order dated 10 th April, 2010

barring the entry of the petitioner to the college complex is concerned, the

counsel for the petitioner has handed over copy of the order dated 23 rd

July, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.3887/2010 earlier preferred by the petitioner. A

perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner had also filed W.P.(C)

No.4819/2010 challenging the findings of the CCC. The counsel for the

petitioner informs that W.P.(C) No.4819/2010 was dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty to approach the ACC.

6. W.P.(C) No.3887/2010 was preferred against the order debarring the

entry and was disposed of on 23rd July, 2010 as aforesaid holding that the

petitioner could not be permitted to enter the college at that stage and

giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer after the decision of the

ACC.

7. The ACC having also found the petitioner guilty of sexual

harassment, unless the said findings are set aside, no case is made out for

allowing the petitioner at this stage to enter the college campus.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no provision

entitling the college to so bar the entry of the petitioner. I presume the

same argument must have been taken in the earlier W.P.(C) No.3887/2010

also. The same having not found favour then and there being no change in

findings as to the guilt of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be permitted

to re-agitate the same.

9. As far as the challenge to the report of the CCC and the order of the

ACC is concerned, since they have recommended disciplinary action

against the petitioner, it has been enquired from the counsel for the

petitioner whether disciplinary action has been taken as yet. The counsel

for the petitioner states that no such action has been taken till now.

10. It has next been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

how the writ petition would be maintainable at this stage in as much as it is

felt that challenge to successive stages of a proceeding, which is to

ultimately culminate in the disciplinary action against the petitioner, is not

permissible.

11. The counsel for the respondent no.3 college appearing on advance

notice has also invited attention to Ordinance XV-D (supra) which

provides for the Head of the Institution to upon the receipt of the inquiry

report of the committee refer the same to the Governing Body/Executive

Council and institute disciplinary action on the basis of recommendations

of the Complaint Committee under relevant service rules. He has further

invited attention to Managing Director, Madras Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajan (1996) 1 SCC 338 & Durgesh

Chandra Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha (1996) 1 SCC 341 to contend that

the petition is pre-mature and the remedy of the petitioner would be against

the order of the Disciplinary Authority only.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that the Governing

Body of the college cannot take any disciplinary action and the matter has

to be referred to the Executive Council of the University. Reliance in this

regard is placed on the order dated 23 rd July, 2010 (supra) in W.P.(C)

No.3887/2010 where also it has been observed that depending upon

outcome of the proceedings before the ACC the matter will have to be sent

to the Executive Council.

13. The counsels for the College and the University have, per contra

contended that the report is required to be sent to the Executive Council in

the case of the employee of the University and to the Governing Body in

the case of an employee of the college.

14. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any rule for

reference of the report of the Complaint Committee qua an employee of

the college to the Executive Council of the University. A perusal of the

Ordinance also shows that in the case of an employee of the college as the

petitioner is, it is only the Governing Body of the college and not the

Executive Council of the University which is to take disciplinary action.

15. The counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that the writ

petition against the reports of the CCC and ACC would be maintainable at

this stage only. It has been enquired whether against the order of the

Disciplinary Authority/disciplinary action, a departmental appeal would

not be maintainable.

16. The counsels for the college and the University have invited

attention to the enclosure to Ordinance XII of the University Calendar,

Clause 9 whereof provides for reference of a dispute in connection with

termination of services of the teacher to arbitration of an Appeal

Committee. It is thus felt that if the writ petition is entertained at this stage,

it would also interfere with the redressal mechanism provided in the

University Calendar itself.

17. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the ACC has

not recommended termination, the question of arbitration would not arise.

The counsels for the college and the University also confirm that against

any punishment lesser than that of termination, no arbitration or

departmental appeal is provided. They however contend that it is open to

the Disciplinary Authority to inpite of the recommendation, mete out the

higher punishment of termination to the petitioner.

18. The counsel for the petitioner also does not controvert the same as a

legal proposition though contends that generally punishment higher than

that recommended is not meted out.

19. However since the possibility cannot be ruled out, it is felt that

entertaining the petition at this stage would interfere with the redressal

mechanism provided in the University Calendar.

20. The petition is therefore held to be not maintainable and pre-mature

at this stage and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to urge all

grounds as taken herein in any other remedy if any sought by the

petitioner. No order as to costs.

21. The counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for the Disciplinary

Authority to take a time bound action. However having perused the reports

of the two Committees, the petitioner is not found entitled to be deserving

of any indulgence. The said request of the petitioner thus cannot be

acceded to.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 4th, 2011 pp